If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Cops have A LOT of leeway with what the do and don't enforce. In one of my more embarrassing moments when I was younger, I was pulled over after having a few too many. In hindsight, I should not have been anywhere near a car, but I was 22 and stupid and nothing was going to keep me from going to this girl's house. I was very respectful to the officer, cooperated fully, didn't argue, and did my best to make the whole process as quick and painless for him as possible. He ran my plate, saw I hadn't had even so much as a parking ticket, and just gave me a ride home. On the way home, he told me he was giving me a break because from what he could tell, I was a good guy. Told me he appreciated me not hassling him about the sobriety tests, even though he knew we already both knew what the situation was. Since then, I haven't gone anywhere near a car if I've had even a single beer. I got away with one, and I doubt it ever happens again. But really, it just shows that an officer pretty much decides what he is going to do independently. I'm sure he has ongoing instructions from his superiors, but at the end of the day, it's their call...

If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
maybe you would never have to hurt again...

Man, is that how you see government? Do what i say, no matter how it goes against a Constitution, both federal and state, you swore to uphold, or we'll take your money?

Tell me how that stance reconciles with the founders vision of government? What a twisted sad perception

Individual Sheriffs should not get to decide what the Constitution says. We the courts and the laws for that. Just do your job and enforce them. If you can't do that, you probably chose the wrong line of work.

Individual Sheriffs should not get to decide what the Constitution says. We the courts and the laws for that. Just do your job and enforce them. If you can't do that, you probably chose the wrong line of work.

So if you were a Sheriff and the Federal Government passed a law to “shoot all blacks on sight” you’d be out there shooting blacks and all Sheriffs who refused to enforce that law are in the wrong job? I know that’s a bit of a hyperbolic analogy but it gets the point across, Sheriffs are completely within their rights to raise ethical objections to enforcing particular laws that violate the Constitution.

Total DepravityUnconditional ElectionLimited AtonementIrresistible GracePerseverance of the Saints

So if you were a Sheriff and the Federal Government passed a law to “shoot all blacks on sight” you’d be out there shooting blacks and all Sheriffs who refused to enforce that law are in the wrong job? I know that’s a bit of a hyperbolic analogy but it gets the point across, Sheriffs are completely within their rights to raise ethical objections to enforcing particular laws that violate the Constitution.

It definitely gets the point across of what a terrible example looks like.

Sheriffs do not as a practical matter enforce what the Constitution says. That's a misnomer. They enforce the laws and codes that emanate from the Constitution or from constitutionally enabled powers. Do you see how that's different? For example, if you try to keep someone as a slave, you will not be arrested for violating the 13th amendment. You can't be charged with that. The thirteenth amendment has been turned into laws and codes and violating them is what you will be arrested for (among other things, those laws and codes specify certain punishments for certain crimes, whereas the Constitution does not, except for treason). Those laws and codes, be they local or state or national, are what Sheriffs enforce.

Like every phrase, statement or amendment to the Constitution, the second amendment has likewise been turned into various laws and codes. And any law that's passed would necessarily have say that where preceding law is in conflict with the new law, the new law supersedes the old. It is for the courts to rectify that with the standards laid out by the Constitution. If it passes those standards, then it's the law of the land, and it's the duty of any Sheriff to uphold them.

It definitely gets the point across of what a terrible example looks like.

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

Sheriffs do not as a practical matter enforce what the Constitution says. That's a misnomer. They enforce the laws and codes that emanate from the Constitution or from constitutionally enabled powers. Do you see how that's different? For example, if you try to keep someone as a slave, you will not be arrested for violating the 13th amendment. You can't be charged with that. The thirteenth amendment has been turned into laws and codes and violating them is what you will be arrested for (among other things, those laws and codes specify certain punishments for certain crimes, whereas the Constitution does not, except for treason). Those laws and codes, be they local or state or national, are what Sheriffs enforce.

Like every phrase, statement or amendment to the Constitution, the second amendment has likewise been turned into various laws and codes. And any law that's passed would necessarily have say that where preceding law is in conflict with the new law, the new law supersedes the old. It is for the courts to rectify that with the standards laid out by the Constitution. If it passes those standards, then it's the law of the land, and it's the duty of any Sheriff to uphold them.

Wait, so you are saying that if the Federal Government passed a Federal Law that “all black people shall be shot on sight” then all Sheriffs should order their men to shoot blacks until a court could deem that particular law unconstitutional a few years down the road after millions of blacks were already dead? Sheriffs have the ability to object to doing or ordering something done that they have an ethical or moral objection to, it’s a form of “check and balance” and I am glad we have it.

Wait, so you are saying that if the Federal Government passed a Federal Law that “all black people shall be shot on sight” then all Sheriffs should order their men to shoot blacks until a court could deem that particular law unconstitutional a few years down the road after millions of blacks were already dead? Sheriffs have the ability to object to doing or ordering something done that they have an ethical or moral objection to, it’s a form of “check and balance” and I am glad we have it.

You comprehensively failed to understand the point. Such a law would in conflict with other laws. It would be impossible to enforce such a law simultaneous to enforcing laws that protect citizens from harm.

As to the point you're awkwardly lumbering your way at, do you think it's reasonable for a person to have a moral objection to gun control?